U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–151 PDF 2014

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET: 

ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR THE 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

(113–19) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 22, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

JANICE HAHN, California 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Nancy K. Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................. 5 

Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................................. 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Nancy K. Stoner ....................................................................................................... 32 

Mathy Stanislaus ..................................................................................................... 39 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York, request to submit the following report: U.S. Government Accountability Office, Funding for 10 States’ Programs Supported by Four 

Environmental Protection Agency Categorical Grants, GAO–13–504R (May 

6, 2013) .................................................................................................................. 58 

Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, request 

to submit a letter that he and 16 other Members of Congress signed 

and sent to Hon. Bob Perciasepe, Acting Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, that expressed concern over EPA’s release of farmers’ 

private information to environmental groups, April 17, 2013 .......................... 11 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responses to questions for the record 

from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bob Gibbs, of Ohio ................................................................................... 49 

Hon. Duncan Hunter, of California ................................................................. 52 

Hon. Don Young, of Alaska .............................................................................. 55 

Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’ Crawford, of Arkansas .................................................... 57 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 81151.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 81151.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 81151.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 81151.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 81151.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 81151.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 81151.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 81151.008
xiv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 81151.009
(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 

BUDGET: ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR 

THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:25 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will 

come to order. 

Today, we are having a hearing on ‘‘The President’s Fiscal Year 

2014 Budget: Administration Priorities for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency.’’ We have two witnesses on our first and only 

panel. 

First, I want to just do a unanimous consent for any followup for 

the records that we may have. Seeing no objection, so ordered for 

that. 

And I will start with my opening statement. 

First of all, I would like to thank everybody for coming to the 

hearing today. 

When Congress wrote the Clean Water Act and other Federal environmental statutes some 40 years ago, it envisioned the Federal 

Government and the States would be equal partners in solving the 

Nation’s environmental problems. For many years, that FederalState partnership has worked well. 

However, in the past few years, we have seen a substantial 

change in the approach taken by the Environmental Protection 

Agency that is now serving to undermine the balance of the Federal-State partnership that has long existed. EPA is now insisting 

on imposing its Federal will on States, local government, and the 

private regulatory community with a heavy-handed, Federal, topdown, one-size-fits-all policy, regulatory approach that is taking 

away the flexibility they need to address their environmental 

issues. 

EPA is aggressively moving forward on several regulatory fronts 

simultaneously, with the result that States and local governments 

all across the Nation, as well as the private regulating community, 

2 

are facing increasing regulatory enforcement and financial pressures to address a multitude of burdensome regulatory requirements that recently have become EPA priorities. 

There has been an exponential increase in regulations coming 

out of the EPA related to this subcommittee’s jurisdiction. These 

include more stringent and widespread regulation of stormwater 

discharges, nutrients, and other pollutants, which could lead to 

many communities having to install and operate, at great expense, 

state-of-the-art treatment, removal, and prevention technologies. 

I am particularly concerned about the EPA’s use of so-called 

guidance as a means of short-circuiting the process for changing 

Agency policy without following a proper transparent and unbiased 

rulemaking process. Much of this so-called guidance amounts to 

being de facto rules instead of advisory guidelines. 

Many of these regulatory efforts are based on questionable 

science and questionable authority under the law. Many of the efforts stand to substantially increase the regulatory burdens for 

States and local governments, as well as businesses, especially 

small businesses. 

All of these initiatives are piling up additional layers of regulatory requirements and economic burdens that our communities 

are having to somehow deal with. This is making a mockery of the 

administration’s regulatory review initiative to reduce regulatory 

burdens in our country. 

A large portion of these regulatory mandates are going unfunded 

by the Federal Government, with the result that many local communities and private entities are now increasingly struggling with 

how to pay for complying with these mandates. EPA’s aggressive 

actions have created financial pressures and regulatory uncertainty 

for States, local governments, and the regulator community and 

have a chilling effect on the Nation’s economy and job creation. 

The EPA budget put forth from the administration for fiscal year 

2014 does nothing to alleviate my concerns. While the EPA is imposing more unfunded regulatory burdens on communities, businesses, and citizens, the administration at the same time is calling 

for a reduction in spending for many of the programs that assist 

communities in their efforts to come into compliance with these 

regulations. 

While the administration is willing to increase enforcement 

spending, it is cutting spending for compliance assistance efforts. 

And while the administration is willing to allow the EPA to continue imposing regulatory mandates, the administration is willing 

to cut financial assistance to our communities through the Clean 

Water SRF and other programs needed to help pay for complying 

with these mandates. 

Hence, what we have here is a Federal agency that will add to 

the burden of rules and regulations and reduce programs to help 

folks come into compliance but will also put more boots on the 

ground to track down those who cannot come into compliance, with 

little or no benefit to the environment. 

And what we have is an agency that has a reckless disregard for 

the privacy interests of both individual citizens and businesses. 

The EPA has amply demonstrated this recently when it leaked perVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:25 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\5-22-1~1\81151.TXT JEAN
3 

sonal and confidential business information related to farmers not 

just once but twice. This is Government at its worst. 

I want clean water as much as anyone, but I recognize that we 

have to have a strong economy so we can be able to afford to invest 

in new programs that regulations require. Today is not the day to 

put more burdens on the American people. We need to make significant progress in creating long-term jobs and a stronger economy 

before we can tolerate more expensive regulations. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Bishop for any remarks he may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

you holding this hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

Very few Federal agencies are as praised or as vilified as the 

EPA. Depending on your point of view, this agency, which was created by a Republican administration and charged by Congress with 

safeguarding the health of the public and the environment, is often 

portrayed either as the last safeguard of the natural environment 

or an overzealous impediment to unfettered industrial growth. I 

suppose the reality is somewhere in the middle, where this agency 

takes concerted effort in reaching a sustainable balance between 

the health of the public and the health of the environment and the 

health of the economy. 

I have long made the case that you do not have to choose between economic growth and protection of public health and the environment. In my congressional district along the eastern tip of 

Long Island, the health of the economy and the health of the environment are one and the same. People and businesses are drawn 

to my district when the quality of the environment improves, 

whether through visits to our Long Island beaches or through supporting a robust fishing industry. Yet when the overall health of 

the Long Island environment declines, so, too, does the health of 

our local economy. 

I hope we can agree on the need to balance healthy economic 

growth and protecting the health of the public and the environment. Unfortunately, ensuring this careful balance will be more difficult now that the EPA must face the budgetary cuts dictated by 

the recently passed Republican budget. Just yesterday, the House 

Appropriations Committee released its 302(b) allocation for EPA’s 

appropriations bill that mandated an 18-percent cut below the fiscal year 2013 appropriated levels. 

And the slide shows these cuts relative to fiscal 2013. 

The number is about 20 percent below the President’s request for 

the Agency for fiscal year 2014 and about 14 percent below current 

sequestered funding levels. An 18-percent cut to EPA’s budget will 

result in over $1.4 billion less for the Agency for fiscal year 2014. 

To put this in perspective, this would decrease the EPA’s overall 

budget to the actual level it received in fiscal year 1997, not reflecting adjustments for inflation. 

But it gets worse. Over the remaining years of the House Republican budget, the EPA would face additional annual cuts ranging 

between 12 to 16 percent below the fiscal year 2013 CBO budget 

baseline. 

4 

It is without question that withholding resources from EPA will 

have an impact on the Agency’s ability to carry out its statutory 

obligations. As the Agency witnesses will later testify, it has had 

to prioritize where to place its declining resources and has had to 

make tough choices in not funding programs and policies that are 

important to our businesses, our industries, and our communities. 

For example, as we discussed in our April budget hearing related 

to the Corps of Engineers, a significant number of businesses and 

industries petitioned Federal regulatory agencies for Clean Water 

Act permits. However, under the Republican budget and the proposed appropriations level, both the regulatory office of the Corps 

and the permits division of the EPA would face potentially significant budget cuts. As a result, we should expect that Clean Water 

Act permit review times will take longer as a result of underfunded 

staffs. 

Similarly, if the Republican budget discretionary cuts are implemented uniformly, we should expect continued cuts to other programs with widespread support from our communities, such as the 

Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, the 

Superfund cleanup program, and the Brownfields remediation program. In each example, our communities can point to specific 

projects that, if implemented, would improve the overall health of 

the community and protection of the environment. However, these 

projects continue to languish for lack of available funding. 

I have heard others say that cutting the budget of EPA will not 

have an adverse impact on the environment because any decreases 

in Federal protection of the environment will be more than made 

up for by individual States. However, a report that I recently received from the Government Accountability Office reveals that 

quite the opposite is often true. 

For example, GAO found that cuts to Federal grants that support 

State programs, such as section 106 of the Clean Water Act, can 

have equal adverse impacts on State environmental program implementation and are especially problematic in those States where 

local budgetary challenges are even more pronounced than the Nation’s. 

In specific examples, GAO identified several States where cuts to 

the Federal environmental grant programs will result in reductions 

to State environmental staff, cutting less critical programs, and increasing State fees. State officials noted that the effect from these 

cuts will include additional State permitting backlogs, decreased 

capacity to conduct permitting and monitoring activities, and the 

loss of compliance outreach and technical assistance activities. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to make this GAO report part of today’s hearing. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[The report entitled ‘‘Funding for 10 States’ Programs Supported 

by Four Environmental Protection Agency Categorical Grants,’’ can 

be found on page 58.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it seems that we are at a crossroads on finding the proper balance in protecting the health of our 

communities, our environment, and our local economies. One path 

would place fiscal austerity over all other priorities and would have 

5 

a significant and adverse impact on our communities, our local 

economies, and our industries, and place at risk the improvements 

we have made over the decades in protecting public health and the 

environment. The other path would call for tough choices but would 

recognize that wise investments in our Nation’s infrastructure and 

our communities will have lasting rewards. 

I welcome our witnesses here this afternoon, and I look forward 

to their testimony. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. At this time, I want to welcome our two witnesses. 

Our first witness is Ms. Nancy Stoner. She is the Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

And our second witness is Mr. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

At this time, Ms. Stoner, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF NANCY K. STONER, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND MATHY STANISLAUS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. STONER. Good afternoon, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Bishop, and members of the subcommittee. I am Nancy Stoner. I 

am the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water at 

the U.S. EPA. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 

today about the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request for 

EPA’s National Water Program. 

The President’s request reflects the EPA’s ongoing efforts to protect the Nation’s clean water and identify opportunities for savings 

in these challenging economic times. The requested level of $3.3 

billion allows the National Water Program to continue to spur communities, improve infrastructure, drive innovation, spur technology, increase sustainability, and strengthen partnerships with 

States, tribes, and local governments. 

One of the EPA’s highest priorities is supporting communities in 

meeting their clean water and drinking water goals. One way we 

do this is through EPA’s Clean Water and Drinking Water State 

Revolving Funds, or SRFs. These funds provide critical funding to 

States and local entities to improve wastewater and drinking water 

infrastructure and reduce water pollution. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request includes $1.095 

billion for the Clean Water SRF and $817 million for the Drinking 

Water SRF. This funding will enable States and tribes to begin approximately 450 clean water and approximately 370 drinking water 

projects nationally. 

The President’s request, when combined with enacted appropriations, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, totals approximately $20 billion invested by the Federal Government 

in the SRFs over the last 6 years. 

The EPA is also working with municipalities across the country 

to expand and institutionalize the use of integrated planning that 

6 

considers a full range of infrastructure alternatives, including 

green infrastructure, so that priority investments are made first 

and at the lowest lifecycle cost. 

Despite the fiscal challenges we face, supporting our State and 

tribal partners, the primary implementers of environmental programs, remains a priority for EPA. Funding for States and tribes 

through the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account, or STAG, 

is once again the largest percentage of the EPA’s budget request, 

at nearly 40 percent in 2014. 

Total National Water Program categorical grant funding for the fiscal year 2014 budget request is $558.9 million, a $14.9 million 

increase from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The fiscal year 2014 request includes $258.7 million for water 

pollution control grants to States, tribes, and interstate agencies, 

an increase of $20 million over fiscal year 2012 levels. In fiscal year 

2014, the EPA will designate $15 million of this increase for States 

to strengthen their nutrient management efforts. This will help 

States tackle nutrient pollution, which has caused serious environmental and human health issues while harming the economy. 

These additional funds will help ensure the effectiveness of State 

environmental programs and support economic growth. 

Finally, the President’s budget also requests continued funding 

for critical regional restoration and community programs in which 

the EPA works in close coordination with States and other stakeholders. These include programs working to restore the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and America’s urban waters. 

Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, and 

members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to discuss the 

President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request for EPA’s National 

Water Program. The President’s budget reflects the EPA’s ongoing 

efforts to identify potential savings while continuing our commitment to the core mission of sustaining water quality, public health, 

and our economy. 

We look forward to continuing our work with the subcommittee 

to ensure clean and safe water for all Americans. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Stanislaus, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Good afternoon, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking 

Member Bishop, and members of the subcommittee. I am Mathy 

Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to 

discuss EPA’s proposed budget for OSWER’s programs falling 

under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget demonstrates that we 

can make critical investments to strengthen the middle class, create jobs, and grow the economy, while continuing to cut the deficit 

in a balanced way. The President’s budget reinforces our firm commitment to keep America’s communities clean and healthy, while 

also taking into consideration the difficult fiscal situation facing 

State, local, and tribal programs. 

To clean up our communities, the President is proposing investments that clean up contamination and promote economic developVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:25 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\5-22-1~1\81151.TXT JEAN
7 

ment and job creation. The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposes $156.3 million for OSWER’s Brownfields program to support 

State and tribal cleanup programs and to support planning, cleanup, job training, and redevelopment of brownfields properties, especially in underserved and disadvantaged communities. 

EPA’s Brownfields program use this funding to successfully leverage economic investment. On average, nearly $18 is leveraged 

in private and public funding for every EPA dollar expended. And 

more than 85,000 jobs have been leveraged through brownfields 

project funding since the inception of the Brownfields program. 

Another effort to help turn formerly contaminated sites into community assets and provide economic development and job creation 

opportunities is our RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative, which 

was recently recognized by Harvard’s Kennedy School as one of the 

top 25 innovations in the American Government. This is an initiative to work with energy developers and financiers to site renewable energy on contaminated properties. This has resulted in the 

installation of 250 megawatts of installed capacity, which can 

power approximately 35,000 homes across the United States. 

The budget also requests $1.18 billion for Superfund cleanup efforts across the country, which represents a reduction from fiscal 

year 2012 enacted levels and reflects the hard budget choices that 

are being made. Superfund removal and homeland security program funding levels are maintained, with focused reductions associated with long-term remediation in the Superfund remedial program. 

The value and benefit of Superfund resources are significant. 

Academic research published in the American Economic Review 

found Superfund cleanups reduced the incidence of congenital abnormalities by roughly 20 to 25 percent for those living within 

5,000 meters of a site. And a study completed by researchers at 

Duke University and the University of Pittsburgh found that the 

deletion of sites from the national priority list of Superfund sites 

significantly raises the value of owner-occupied housing within 3 

miles of a site by approximately 18.6 percent to 24.5 percent. 

A reduction in the Superfund remedial program will result in 

only a limited number of new EPA-lead construction project starts 

in fiscal year 2014. EPA will balance its Superfund remedial pipeline while focusing on the completion of ongoing projects rather 

than new starts. The cumulative effect of funding reductions in the 

recent years will potentially delay construction work at approximately 40 to 45 new construction projects by the end of fiscal year 

2014. 

Notwithstanding the constraints on the appropriated funding levels, we have been particularly successful in leveraging cleanup 

funding through the use of responsible party settlements to establish site-specific special accounts. Through the end of fiscal year 

2012, EPA has collected more than $4 billion, including interest, in 

more than 1,000 site-specific special accounts. 

Of this amount, EPA has disbursed or obligated more than $2.5 

billion for site response actions and developed a multiyear plan for 

nearly 100 percent of the remaining funds in the special accounts 

available. In total, through fiscal year 2012, EPA has secured more 

8 

than $37 billion in responsible-party commitments for site cleanup 

and reimbursement of past costs. 

The Superfund removal and emergency response programs conducted or provided oversight for 428 EPA-led and responsible-party 

cleanup actions in fiscal year 2012. The fiscal year 2014 target for 

EPA-led removal actions is 170 and is the target for responsibleparty removal actions, as well. 

EPA’s emergency response programs will continue to maintain 

capability to respond to imminent threats to human health, including incidents of national significance. EPA’s oil spill program is designed to protect inland waterways through oil spill prevention, 

preparedness, and enforcement activities associated with more 

than 600,000 nontransportation-related oil storage facilities that 

EPA regulates. There are approximately 20,000 oil spills reported 

to the Federal Government on a yearly basis. 

Recognizing the importance that this sector has brought to our 

economy and to our environment, the fiscal year 2014 budget requests a $2.5 million increase for OSWER’s oil spill program, which 

would fund efforts to broaden and expand prevention and preparedness activities, particularly with respect to the inspection of highrisk facilities and the development and implementation of a thirdparty audit program. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

I will yield myself 5 minutes for the first questions. 

Ms. Stoner, I am really concerned about the EPA’s release, twice 

now, of animal livestock farmers around the country, I think about 

18,000 of them, of their private emails, their private information, 

contact information, to environmental groups such as Earth Justice 

and the Natural Resources Defense Council and others. And I know 

that the EPA has requested that the information be sent back, that 

your agency has admitted they made a mistake. 

I sent a letter, along with 16 other congressmen here, earlier in 

April requesting what your agency is doing to make sure this 

doesn’t happen again. Of course, after I sent the letter, it happened 

again. And I haven’t had a response, we haven’t had a response 

back to the letter. 

But, also, in the letter, we requested that a full investigation be 

held and people held accountable. Because, you know, these livestock farmers have to have trust in your agency with this information. And this could really be dangerous to their operations and 

their personal security and the security of their operations, because 

some of these groups sometimes are radicalized. And that is a concern. 

So my first question is, you know, what are you doing about that 

to make sure it doesn’t happen again? And are you holding an investigation? And will there be people held accountable? 

Ms. STONER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you. 

As you know, what did happen is that the Agency released information that we believed at the time was publicly available information. We had asked States only for publicly available information. 

Under the FOIA, all requesters are treated equally, in terms of the 

data being requested to them. And we did release that information. 

9 

And we believed, upon careful scrutiny of the information, that 

there was some information in there that there were privacy concerns associated with. 

We have been in discussions with the agricultural community 

ever since then about that and have made redactions to that release to address those privacy concerns that they raised and that 

we take very seriously. We also requested the information back and 

have received it. 

We are continuing to work to make sure that we have very thorough, proper FOIA training for everyone in the Office of Water, including on privacy issues like those that you asked about today, 

and have set up a regular group to meet with the agricultural community to discuss the data and how we should move forward together. 

Mr. GIBBS. You said you asked for the information back? 

Ms. STONER. That is correct. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. That is a little preposterous. I am sure that this 

information was probably sent out, copies were made, probably 

sent out to other organizations. Just be aware of that, that there 

might be instances of concerns. 

But you are looking into it, are you actually doing a full investigation to make sure your personnel will have FOIA training, but 

I think it goes far beyond training. Is anybody being held accountable? Are there going to be any disciplinary actions or anything 

like that? 

Ms. STONER. We believe we have dealt appropriately with this 

specific incident at issue, at this point. And we have redacted the 

information that we believe to be appropriate to be redacted at this 

time and have received back the earlier information. So we will be 

looking prospectively—— 

Mr. GIBBS. What did you do to handle it? You say you believe 

you handled it appropriately. What did you do? 

Ms. STONER. Very carefully reviewed all of that information, discussed it with the agricultural stakeholders, among others—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Agricultural stakeholders. How about the people who 

work for you that disseminated that information? 

Ms. STONER. Absolutely. We have had many discussions about 

that to ensure that the concerns that were raised by the agricultural stakeholders were ones that our staff is very cognizant of. 

And we will be ensuring, moving forward, that we take those types 

of concerns into account. 

Mr. GIBBS. I think you should do as much as you can, because 

it is obvious what is going on in some other agencies. And there 

is a real lack of public trust and confidence in our Government 

right now, and things like this make people feel uneasy. And it can 

be, like I said, a very dangerous situation for those producers out 

there. 

Ms. STONER. Yes. The public trust is very important to us, and 

we will be making sure that we are treating everyone fairly at EPA 

under the FOIA, as we are required to do. 

Mr. GIBBS. And along those lines, also came up the issue about 

some of the Freedom of Information requests, that I saw some reports that some groups are being charged for those requests and 

some groups aren’t. Is that a practice that the EPA is doing? 

10 

Ms. STONER. Again, we have policies under the FOIA about when 

to grant a fee waiver. And that will be part of the training, to ensure that everyone is fully briefed on those policies to make sure, 

again, that we treat everyone fairly. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Quickly—and my time is up, but I want to follow through on 

this. What are those policies to make sure that everybody is treated fairly? I mean, if some groups come in and ask for a Freedom 

of Information request and you deem it that is in the public interest, will you still charge a fee for those requests, for the paperwork? Do you have a set program, or everybody gets charged? 

Ms. STONER. I believe that there are policies about treating, for 

example, the media differently than others. But we will be making 

sure that the policies that exist, which, in general, treat—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Could you send to the committee a copy of those policies? 

Ms. STONER. We would be happy to follow up with you on that. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Appreciate that. 

Just before I yield to my ranking member, the letter that myself 

and 16 other Members of Congress sent to the Acting Administrator, I ask unanimous consent to put in the record. 

Seeing none, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 10 here 81151.010
12 


Insert offset folio 11 here 81151.011
13 

Mr. GIBBS. And I yield to Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Stanislaus, I am going to start with you. I am very concerned about the Superfund and the inadequacy of funding to the 

Superfund. I mean, just to review, we have stopped taxing industries that manufacture and sell hazardous substances in 1995. 

Superfund was fully spent down in 2004. And since 2004, all 

Superfund cleanup activities have been funded by General Fund 

taxpayer-generated revenue. 

And it seems to me we have an analogous situation; we have 

something, as you know, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. 

We tax those industries that refine and import petroleum. We tax 

them 8 cents a barrel. And so we are saying that if you are going 

to profit from the importation or sale of petroleum-related projects, 

you have to bear the burden of the cleanup if something goes awry. 

It is something that the Congress has authorized, something that 

the Congress leaves in place. 

And so my question, I guess, to you but also to my colleagues is, 

why is it that we are willing to give the companies that manufacture and sell hazardous materials, why are we willing to give them 

a free pass and we are not willing to give other elements of the industry that same free pass? 

So that is question number one to you, as I say, but I really am 

also asking it rhetorically of my colleagues. 

And the second question is, what is the ongoing impact of the inadequacy of funding? My understanding is that we have 40 to 45 

Superfund sites ready to go for construction, but we don’t have sufficient funds to go there. And we have some 1,600 identified Superfund sites across the country that we are not addressing because 

of inadequate funding. 

So if you could answer both those questions. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. 

With respect to those parties who are responsible for contamination of the site, within our program we pursue responsible parties 

as the path of first course. 

The President has also proposed the reinstatement of the Superfund tax, focusing on those entities that are associated with the 

creation of Superfund sites. 

Thirdly, we are working on putting in place a financial assurance 

mechanism. And we have identified a number of categories of industry, so that entities that have been associated with the contamination of Superfund sites and where Superfund has been used to 

clean up those sites, that those industries would have a financial 

assurance mechanism in place that, should contamination happen, 

we would have a private instrument to do the cleanup. 

Mr. BISHOP. If I could interrupt you? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, sure. 

Mr. BISHOP. There exists, we all know, these so-called orphan 

sites—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. Sites for whom we cannot either identify or pursue a responsible party. Of the 1,600 Superfund sites 

that have been identified, can you estimate how many of them are 

so-called orphan sites? 

14 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I don’t have that number here, but I can get 

that to you. What I can say, of the backlog at the end of this fiscal 

year, those all would be in the orphan category. 

Mr. BISHOP. They are all orphan sites, and if we are going to act 

on them, we are going to act on them with taxpayer-generated 

General Fund revenue, correct? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. And whoever created the mess is going to walk 

away—well, has already walked away. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I mean, though, the reason why—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. The answer is yes. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. And the reason why they are orphan sites, 

the responsible party is not around anymore for them to take responsibility for the cleanup. 

Mr. BISHOP. Precisely. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you. 

All right. Ms. Stoner, you indicated in your testimony that even 

with reduced expenditures brought on by the fiscal climate we find 

ourselves in, that—and your measure of reduced expenditures was 

the President’s budget. 

Ms. STONER. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. If that number were to be reduced an additional— 

by 18 percent, which is what the 302(b) allocation is that came out 

of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday, would the 

department be able to continue to pursue and accomplish its core 

mission? 

Ms. STONER. Obviously, that would be very difficult for us. And 

the programs that we run that are so important to the American 

public in ensuring that they have clean waters to swim in and safe 

drinking water, fish that they can eat, all of those programs that 

are so important to the American public, to the economy, and so 

forth. And we would have very serious difficulties. 

There was a lot of concern expressed about our ability to work 

with our State partners, and we made a lot of choices in the President’s budget for this year to continue programs uncut, like the 319 

Nonpoint Source Program, or to actually increase programs, like 

the 106 program that gives money to the States to run their clean 

water programs, or the PWSS, which gives money to States to run 

drinking water programs. 

With cuts like that, I don’t know how we could continue to support that great work that our State partners do, working with the 

Agency to implement the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking 

Water—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I have exceeded my time, but if I could just ask one 

more question. If I could ask each of you to provide the committee, 

with as much specificity as possible, the impact that implementation of an across-the-board 18-percent cut would have on the ability 

of the department to pursue its core mission. 

Ms. STONER. Of course. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mrs. Capito? 

15 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

And I want to thank the witnesses for being here. 

Ms. Stoner, the October 6th, 2011, and July 31st, 2012, NMA v. 

Jackson decision struck down the interagency memorandum of understanding and guidance and made clear that such attempts were 

outside of EPA’s statutory authority and that the Corps alone can 

implement. 

I am wondering, are you—and I have asked you this question before, but I would like an update. How is the EPA working to ensure 

that this is being implemented? Where are you on that? 

Ms. STONER. So we are no longer relying on that document and 

on the implementation procedures that we had worked out with 

other Federal agencies that the Federal court struck down. That 

case is, of course, on appeal and is a matter in litigation. 

We continue to work closely with other agencies, however, under 

the authorities of the Clean Water Act that authorize us to do so. 

Mrs. CAPITO. OK. Thank you. 

Guidance documents also have had significant impact on the 

issuance of the 402 permits. In West Virginia, for instance, we 

have 724 applications for NPDES permits for mining activities 

pending in January of 2013. To put that in perspective, we only 

had 306 applications pending in 2008. 

What do you feel is a reasonable amount of time that a permit 

applicant should have to wait in order to secure a permit? 

Ms. STONER. Some are more complex than others, but it is very 

important that the agencies work together effectively to issue those 

permits as rapidly as possible after ensuring they meet the requirements of the law. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Are you doing anything to help with the backlog 

that exists right now to speed that up? 

Ms. STONER. We absolutely are working very closely with our colleagues at the Corps and with our State colleagues, because, as you 

know, through Appalachia, the States are issuing the NPDES permits, to ensure that those permits are issued in compliance with 

the law. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Well, you may be aware that I introduced a bill to 

try to make definitive the length of the process so we could have 

some predictability and stability in this. 

So I am not sure what the future of that is, but that is something 

that we will be talking about hopefully in this subcommittee, sir. 

The other court case that I would like to talk about is the EPA 

v. Mingo Logan. Ms. STONER. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPITO. And, as you know, I disagree with this decision, but 

the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld EPA’s authority to retroactively 

veto a permit. As you know, this opinion has created widespread 

anxiety in the coal-mining industry. And EPA argued successfully 

that it has the authority to take away a 404 permit irrespective of 

whether the permit holder is complying with the terms of the permit. 

But if we look back to the deliberations on the Clean Water Act 

originally, there were three hallmarks for permitting regulations 

that exist: One is uniformity, one is finality, and one is enforceability. 

16 

Do you agree that finality is an important consideration for permits? In other words, when they have been finally issued, are they 

finally issued? 

Ms. STONER. So the court held that the 404(c) authority allows 

the withdrawal of a specification, so a particular location for the 

discharge of material, when certain findings are made. So the permit remains, and the permit allows continued mining at that operation as at others. But those specifications that we had moved to 

withdraw, the court found was appropriate under the statute itself. 

It was an interpretation of the statute itself, the Clean Water Act. 

It is important to keep in mind, of course, that we use the 404(c) 

authority extremely rarely. So it is about 13 times ever in the history of the Clean Water Act, which has been 40-some years now, 

41 this year I guess. So we use it very rarely, and we would only 

use it for particular instances of grave concern. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Well, as you can imagine, this isn’t just coal mining, it is other entities that are seeking these types of permits. And 

the chill of investment—if you feel that you have put 10 years, 

which this company did, into securing a permit, working it and reworking it, working under the permit, and then having it yanked 

out from under them after probably millions and millions of dollars 

of investment, you can imagine what that does to chill the investment in anything, not just coal mining, in the area. 

I have a final question. In 2002, the EPA and Corps of Engineers 

adopted a joint regulatory definition of fill material. The current 

rule includes fill materials that, when placed in the waters of the 

U.S., had the effect of raising the bottom elevation or filling the 

water, and maintains the proper legal distinction between discharges between the 404 and the 402. However, EPA and the Corps 

have stated that they are now considering revising that definition. 

What specific problems with the current rule is the EPA having? 

Ms. STONER. We have no active discussions with the Corps on revising that rule at this time. 

Mrs. CAPITO. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Kirkpatrick? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Stoner, the Navajo Nation EPA obtained primacy for the 

public water supply supervision program in 2000, and the Navajo 

Nation EPA has done a tremendous job of maintaining compliance 

over 164 drinking water systems. Grants in fiscal year 2014 are 

slated for reductions, although we hope that does not happen. 

So I have two questions, but I am going to ask them together so 

you can answer them together. The first one is, how can EPA apply 

appropriate discretion to maintain resource investments in the continuation of the Navajo Nation EPA public water supply supervision? And then, what can be done to elevate the resource issues 

to support the establishment of base funding allocations for the 

Navajo Nation public water supply supervision program? 

Ms. STONER. So the cuts that we have taken under the sequester 

are across-the-board cuts designated for particular programs, so we 

have very limited discretion to protect particular programs. 

We do continue to work closely with the tribes on those programs, and including with the Navajo, and have put particular attention on ensuring that the drinking water systems and the comVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:25 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\5-22-1~1\81151.TXT JEAN
17 

pliance is as good on tribal lands as on other lands. And we actually have a measure to measure how well we are doing on that. So 

it is a priority for the Agency. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Do you see another source of funds to continue that project? 

Ms. STONER. I think that if we continue to have continued funding under the PWSS program, there is a specific amount of that 

that goes to the tribes. So the more funding in that program generally, the more funding we will have available for tribes. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. 

Ms. Stoner, do you believe the EPA jurisdictional authority to 

regulate water is limited or unlimited—and this isn’t meant to be 

an accusation or any inference whatsoever—limited or unlimited 

under the Clean Water Act? 

Ms. STONER. It is limited. And it is actually more limited than 

it used to be under the two Supreme Court decisions addressing 

the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. 

Mr. HANNA. To that end, Congress has expressly opposed legislative attempts to remove the word ‘‘navigable’’ from the law and replace it with a new term, ‘‘waters of the United States,’’ as broadly 

defined by the EPA. 

Isn’t this exactly what the EPA’s so-called guidance attempts to 

accomplish? 

Ms. STONER. The guidance that was put out in proposal and as 

a draft is currently pending, would seek greater clarity about the 

question that you ask. So it is currently somewhat muddled as to 

where the scope of jurisdiction lies and where the line lies that you 

ask about—— 

Mr. HANNA. What is your opinion about what you would like to 

see in the language? What would you like to see, ultimately, that 

language to be? 

Ms. STONER. We would like to see greater clarity that helps the 

Federal, State, local agencies and local entities—— 

Mr. HANNA. What does that mean to you, though? Which way 

would you go, ‘‘navigable’’ or ‘‘waters of the United States’’? 

Ms. STONER. Well, both are currently in the Clean Water Act, 

but what we would like to do is to interpret the language of the 

Clean Water Act in light of those Supreme Court cases to provide 

greater clarity on that question. 

Mr. HANNA. I understand that numerous stakeholders, including 

the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, 

League of Cities, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, are 

strongly urging the EPA to update its affordability guidelines to 

better reflect the financial needs that communities are facing in 

trying to meet multiple unfunded regulatory mandates. 

What are the EPA’s plans to amend the affordability guidelines, 

if any? And why does the EPA, if it is, why does it seem to be so 

resistant to these changes? 

Ms. STONER. We are actually in very productive discussions with 

the National League of Cities, Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties, on issues of financial capability. I 

would not say we are resistant at all. In fact, what we are doing 

18 

is working out a range of factors that can be considered on financial capability to address those concerns. And it is a very productive dialogue that—— 

Mr. HANNA. Can you break that down a little bit more? Can you 

say what that might look like and what kind of timeline we are 

looking at? 

Ms. STONER. Well, the discussions are occurring now, and I believe—we just had one meeting, and I believe there are two more 

ahead to discuss this in more detail. 

Cynthia Giles, my colleague in the enforcement office, and I already issued a memo explaining the general idea about financial 

capability and considering a broader range of factors. And what we 

are working on now is what further detail on that would include. 

Mr. HANNA. All right. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Stanislaus, since 1995, thousands of brownfields sites have 

been assessed, and well over 2,000 properties have been made 

ready for reuse. 

Can you talk a little bit about the progress for that reuse and 

how successful it has been? Not just the cleanup, of course, but 

there are 2,000 sitting out there. What kind of actions are you taking to dispose of these properties and to facilitate new companies, 

new use of these properties? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. 

And I actually think the program is very successful, but we have 

lots of challenges. On a yearly basis, we are only able to fund about 

one-quarter of all requests. 

And the tools that we provide are generally in the category of 

grants for investigating a site to determine how contaminated the 

site is. We provide cleanup resources, we provide redevelopment resources. And, generally, it is led by local governments. 

Mr. HANNA. How many of these sites, can you give me an estimate of how many are actually being used for some other purpose? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I can give you a comprehensive list, but let 

me give you an overall summary. 

Mr. HANNA. OK. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Roughly, every dollar of U.S. grants leverages about $18 of private and public investment. And the reason for that 

is, because particularly on the site assessment side, it provides 

more certainty so the private sector can underwrite these projects. 

And, in fact, I got together with a number of local leaders and 

developers just last week at our semiannual meeting to bring actors together to redevelop—— 

Mr. HANNA. My time is almost up, but do you think that there 

is enough certainty? Do you imagine, after working through this, 

there are ways that the Government can either take on more legal 

responsibility or relieve the downside potential to companies in 

order to facilitate their interest in these properties? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I would have to consider more the liability 

question. What we have done is to provide even further liability 

clarification. 

For example, we recently had a conversation with those who 

were interested in siting clean energy on contaminated properties. 

You remember, developers and financiers. And they thought that 

we needed to provide further liability clarification for lessees. 

19 

Under the Brownfields Law that was passed a number of years 

ago, it provided certainty for owners but not lessees. So we have 

recently issued further clarification, which can be used in the underwriting process to provide that kind of certainty. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. 

My time has expired, long past. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bishop. 

I am glad we are having this hearing. 

I just wanted to start by going on the record, and I know everybody doesn’t have the same experience that I have, but I have really found in the areas that I represent out in Los Angeles that we 

never really had to choose between protecting our environment and 

creating jobs. 

In fact, what I found was cleaning up the air and cleaning up 

the water at the Port of Los Angeles actually created jobs. And, 

with our insistence that the Port of L.A. clean up its act, we actually created a laboratory where we had just numerous small businesses and entrepreneurs who were able to start up businesses 

that helped to clean up the port and gave them a consistent and 

reliable reason to create businesses and products and technology 

that would continue to support that mandate. 

So I never had to choose between clean air and good jobs. I think 

we can do both. 

I am going to follow up on my friend and colleague, Mr. Hanna’s 

line of questioning about brownfields. And many of the communities that I represent have significant brownfields, and, you know, 

they are the recipient of decades of being used as a dumping 

ground for a lot of the rest of Los Angeles. The city of Carson is 

one of those, and they are discovering that these brownfields sites 

represent significant development opportunities on valuable, welllocated land. And what they are doing now to clean, remediate this 

is impressive. It is creating jobs and growth and opportunity. 

But, Mr. Stanislaus, in what you just said, that every dollar of 

EPA brownfields spending leverages nearly $18 in private and public funding, of course I am sitting here troubled by the administration proposing to cut brownfields grants by $9 million. And, by your 

math, you know, cutting this $9.1 million is really a $173 million 

cut to brownfields projects that are creating jobs, rejuvenating communities, and figuring out a way to deal with these brownfields. 

So when we are so desperately in need of jobs and opportunity 

that these brownfields remediations have provided, how can the 

EPA ensure that this proposed cut does not adversely impact the 

progress of brownfields remediation activities across our country 

and in my district? And how can we leverage more private funding 

when we are losing a significant leverage tool in this grant money? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, thank you. And, you know, ideally, we 

would not have that cut. You know, we are in this constrained 

budget time that we have right now. And so we tried to minimize 

the cut to the greatest extent we can. 

So it will have impact in terms of the total numbers of grants 

that we can give and reduce the number of communities that we 

can touch. But despite that, you know, we will try to aggressively, 

20 

one, get the money out as quickly as possible, shrinking that time 

period to get the money out as quickly as possible. 

When I have had a series of discussions with local leaders 

around the country, in these budget-constrained times, the single 

most important activity they underscored in today’s climate is technical assistance, on-the-ground technical assistance, probably even 

more than grants in a lot of cases. 

So we are really ramping up our technical assistance, both our 

direct technical assistance in terms of staff time, our contractor assistance. We recently awarded an independent technical assistance 

provider to provide capacity to local governments so they can compete for resources in a way that we cannot. 

So those are some of the things we are trying to do. The other 

things—in fact, last week, when we brought together probably 

about 28,000 various folks from around the country, you know, we 

continue to want to provide resources and technical assistance to 

them to advance their projects. And that is some of the various 

things that we are trying to do. 

And I should also underscore, which I always like to do, the increase of property values. 

Ms. HAHN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So it is not only the direct leveraging. Our studies show that within a mile of a cleanup of brownfield sites increasing property values from 5.1 percent to 12.8 percent. So it directly 

relates to increases in local tax revenue, you know, property values. 

So there is a lot of stimulative effects of brownfield sites. That is 

why I am a big champion of that. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Crawford? 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank the witnesses for being here today. 

Ms. Stoner, I want to focus on EPA’s regulations of on-farm fuel 

storage. It has been a source of constant frustration for farmers in 

my district and, I suspect, across the country, as well. 

The most recent continuing resolution, H.R. 933, included a provision, section 1416, that bars the EPA from enforcing the Spill 

Prevention Control and Countermeasure Rule that went into effect 

on May 10th. 

If your agency can’t legally enforce these rules at this time, then 

why does the EPA’s SPCC Web site still direct farmers to be in 

compliance by May 10th? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So—— 

Ms. STONER. I am going to direct that question to my colleague. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is actually my question. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. My apologies. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. 

So, you know, we have done extensive outreach with the farmers, 

going back probably, I would say, 10 years or so, to put in place 

the proper balance of the protections to prevent oil spills. And I 

think we, I think the farmers, the farm bureaus, we all agree that 

preventing oil spills is a good thing and limits, prevents impacts on 

farmland, it prevents impacts on local community water sources. 

So, given that, we have tried to make it as lean as possible. And 

just to be clear, the SPCC rules only cover farms that have a significant size of oil tank. So, of the total farm universe, it is less 

21 

than 10 percent. And, of that 10 percent, 95 percent is basically 

self-implementing. So basically they put together their own plans, 

they have a file so that they can ensure that oil spills do not happen. 

And so, we believe we have done a lot to really accommodate the 

farmers and the farmers’ compliance. And, actually, we have had 

a great exchange with the farming community in terms of the rules 

themselves. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. OK. Well, with all due respect, you haven’t answered my question. What I want to find out is, why are you directing them to be in compliance when you don’t have the authority 

to enforce the compliance based on the section 1416 of H.R. 933, 

which extended that beyond May 10th? So I am just wondering 

why you would direct them on your Web site to be in compliance 

on May 10th. 

I guess my followup question would be, when the CR expires, is 

the EPA retroactively going to enforce those regulations if farmers 

weren’t in compliance by May 10th? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, again, our primary objective is to work 

with farmers to put in the protections necessary. So that is what 

we will continue to do. And we continue to have exchanges with the 

farming community to do that. And I think it is a win-win for us 

to be doing that. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. OK. So you will not, then, enforce retroactively 

for those farmers that are not currently in compliance? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, let me get back to you in terms of that. 

You know, again, our primary role here is not lead with enforcement; our primary role is to lead with compliance. And that is why 

we have done lots of outreach with the farming community, going 

back multiple of years. We have actually developed informational 

materials with the farm bureaus to distribute to the farmers. We 

have really worked on making sure during the nongrowing season 

that we do a lot of outreach to them. So I think we are really working hard to work with the farming community. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Well, I appreciate that, but you just said you 

lead with compliance, and a key component to compliance is enforcement. My concern is that farmers won’t be retroactively penalized based on a compliance date that was superceded by the current CR that is in effect right now. 

So I am concerned about that. And I just want to restate for the 

subcommittee here, I hope that we do something about this very 

soon because there are a whole lot of small farmers out there, and 

the thresholds that you have prescribed under the Clean Water Act 

really are unreasonable, 1,320 gallons. And hopefully we can address that. 

I want to switch gears real quick, as my time is limited here. 

Along with Chairman Gibbs, I also sent a letter on March 12th 

requesting some information regarding the EPA release of sensitive 

information to environmental groups. Have not yet received a response to that letter. So I am also very frustrated with that, as 

well. 

But can you tell me and tell the committee what the process used 

by the EPA was to acquire released information from State agencies? 

22 

Ms. STONER. So we contacted States directly and asked them for 

publicly available information to help us implement the Clean 

Water Act’s requirements—— 

Mr. CRAWFORD. OK, let me ask you this: Do you know, was there 

any information such as a Social Security number possibly, GPS coordinates, and so on that would identify the exact locations of any 

of these production facilities? 

Ms. STONER. I am not aware of seeing any Social Security numbers. There were some addresses that were part of the information. 

And, as you know, we have taken steps to redact the information, 

where there were privacy concerns having to do with individuals, 

and have taken that step and have asked for the other data back, 

which we have received. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Well, thank you. I am out of time. But, unfortunately, redacting after the fact does little to protect those farmers 

in question. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Mullin? 

Mr. MULLIN. Real quick, I want to reiterate what Mr. Crawford 

was saying. As an active farm operator, it is absurd to me that the 

EPA is going to start coming on our land trying to tell us how to 

take care of stuff we have been doing for years. I can assure you, 

you are not going to find anybody that has more pride in their 

property than someone like myself that has been on the same land 

for four generations. We don’t need the EPA to come in and start 

telling us how to take care of something we have been doing for 

years. That is not my question. That is just me venting. 

Now, my question is, though, the EPA Scientific Advisory Board 

recently announced their independent panel of 31 experts to study 

the EPA’s conduct on—or conducting on hydraulic fracturing. And 

how did these experts get chosen? 

Ms. STONER. I believe you are asking about a question of the 

study being done by the Office of Research and Development. So 

that is not a study that we are doing out of my office, but we would 

be happy to provide that information to you. 

Mr. MULLIN. So you guys don’t know how the panel was put together? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. It was set up, as Nancy noted, by another office. 

We can get you that information, how the experts were selected. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, I mean, I think that would be pretty important, just for the simple fact—and I just want to point out something here. The panel, 60 percent of those, of the 31 that are on 

that panel, 60 percent of them had direct funding from the EPA, 

60 percent of them. Now, out of that, Missouri is on there, Washington is on there, North Carolina has three universities on there, 

Penn State has two, Colorado has four. Oklahoma, who has, as we 

speak, 149 active fracking sites. We gave out 10,000 permits last 

year alone, not on there. North Dakota, where we are hearing all 

this stuff going on, not one person is on there. 

Something needs to be checked in on this panel. I really hope 

this doesn’t have to do with an agenda. I would really hope that 

this panel was put together for the purpose of truly giving an independent study point of view. But everything we are seeing, that is 

not going on. What we are seeing is the EPA once again has their 

23 

own agenda, has nothing do with getting it right. It has their own 

agenda. 

And so I would appreciate it if you guys could bring that to my 

office or at least get it sent to me. 

Mr. Speaker, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First off, thank you both for coming in today. 

You know, if you are a farmer or a producer and you look at the 

news for the last few years, you are kind of concerned with your 

agency. You had proposals to further regulate farm dust, proposals 

to treat milk spills like oil spills. I know there has been a lot of 

discussion about the ‘‘navigable’’ term out of ‘‘navigable waterways.’’ And, also, your agency admits to releasing personal information on over 80,000 livestock producers to activist groups. 

As you can see the hits, they keep on coming to the agricultural 

community. And I must ask, are you personally aware of the disconnect between the agency you work for and the people that I represent in the agricultural community? 

Ms. Stoner? 

Ms. STONER. So we have set up a group to supplement the usual 

group that we have to periodically discuss issues with the agricultural community to try to improve the communication and understanding on issues like the ones that you raise. 

We are well aware of the benefits to clean water from having 

land in farming, particularly, as opposed to developed. And we also 

recognize what good stewards of the land farmers are in the United 

States. 

So we are actively working with those groups to improve communication on issues on which we have had some difficulties. And I 

will acknowledge that we have had some, and we are doing the 

very best we can to improve that situation. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Stoner, thank you. 

I had an idea, and I successfully included an amendment to the 

farm bill that would provide agriculture with a place at the table 

whenever EPA is proposing a new regulation that deals with ag. 

My amendment does three simple things. It increases the USDA 

review of the EPA regs that just affect the agriculture industry. It 

sets up a mechanism where farmers can just provide you input on 

these regulations. And then it summons an ag review panel that 

submits a report and recommendations to EPA on the concerns of 

the ag community. 

Given the principles that I have outlined, does the EPA support 

this type of involvement by the agricultural community and the 

USDA? 

Ms. STONER. I am not familiar with the details of your specific 

legislation, and I don’t believe the administration has a position on 

it right now. 

I will note, though, that every person in the United States has 

the opportunity to comment on proposed rules and that there also 

is a process under which USDA and other agencies work through 

the clearance process that we go through with OMB on every rule, 

so that those opportunities exist now under current law. 

24 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Well, I mean, you are saying that the farmers 

and the agriculture industry is already involved in the regulatory 

process. I just can’t fathom, then, how the EPA explains some of 

the issues that have come out of your agency that I mentioned earlier. I just think there is a disconnect, and I think it demonstrates 

a lack of understanding that I was just discussing. 

I think the EPA needs to provide better access to the agricultural 

community so that we are not—we are dealing with issues so that 

your agency understands the ag sector on the front end, rather 

than having to fight back those proposed rules and regulations on 

the back end. 

I urge you to take my message back to your agency. And if there 

is any way I can help facilitate that and facilitate that type of message with the EPA and with the USDA, I am more than willing to 

do that so that we don’t have hearings like this or future hearings 

to discuss what I consider adversarial rules and regulations to the 

many constituents that I represent in central and southwestern Illinois. 

But, again, I do want to thank both of you for your time today. 

I know it is long and arduous to sit in one of these hearings. I commend you for doing so. And I want to say thank you again on behalf of this subcommittee. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this issue. 

And I would like to yield back my time. 

Ms. STONER. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. I will start giving myself some time here for questions. 

Ms. Stoner, back on spending and spending priorities, it has 

come to my attention there is a $12 million request to design a new 

federally owned facility in Las Vegas. And I guess I want to know 

about that. 

Is this going to be—in a time when we have budget restraints 

and there are more pressing needs than to build new facilities, I 

hope this isn’t a start of a new construction program. So can you 

address a little bit what the priorities are? And are you getting into 

the building business? 

Ms. STONER. My understanding is that what you are referring to 

is a lab that is not part of the Office of Water budget, so I am not 

familiar with the request that you are asking about. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Because I believe it is going to be referred to as 

the Harry Reid building, if that stimulates any—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. We will get back to you. I am not familiar 

with it either. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. OK. 

I wanted to talk a little bit about how the past subcommittee 

hearings in the last Congress, we had some good discussion, I 

think, on the integrated permitting initiative. 

Ms. STONER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. GIBBS. And since then, we have had some other hearings, 

some of the local stakeholders in, and concern that it is not really 

functioning. I am not so sure that your agency has really been aggressive enough to get that program going, help the municipalities, 

and craft an acceptable integrated plan. 

25 

What is the status? Are you looking at maybe doing 15 or 20 

pilot projects? Because this is an area where I think we can really 

help on the cost side and actually get something done to improve 

the environment. 

Ms. STONER. Yeah, we appreciate your support for that program, 

and it is moving forward. The goal of it is to work with communities to prioritize their investments so that they can achieve as 

much as possible with the dollar, given the difficult fiscal times in 

which we find ourselves. 

And that program is moving forward. There is a lot of interest 

in it across the country. We have not had to turn away anyone yet, 

so we are not actually in the pilot project mode, in the sense that 

we are talking to everyone who is interested in it. It is voluntary 

for them to decide whether they would like to participate in integrated planning. And those who do are working with their State 

and with EPA to move forward to do so. 

We are also making sure it is implemented consistently throughout the country through regular calls with the regions as well as 

quarterly meetings between Cynthia Giles and the enforcement office and myself to go through the docket of where these discussions 

are occurring to make sure they are moving forward smoothly. 

Mr. GIBBS. Just a suggestion, since we were just talking about the $12 million construction project in Las Vegas, maybe that 

might be well better spent on pilot projects for this integrated permitting. 

A question on that. Is your agency putting out to the local authorities what you would like to see, what kind of projects? Are you 

trying to stimulate the thought process to try to stimulate the interest? I know there is interest at the local level, but maybe they 

need some parameters or some guidance. 

Ms. STONER. Right. So we actually did put out a document that 

helps communities identify what elements of an integrated plan 

would like look. And we have urged them to come in early to talk 

with both us and the State permitting authority to figure out how 

to do that together constructively, to develop an integrated plan 

that can move through the system. So that is how we are addressing that. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

We have also heard that there are some EPA regional offices 

where certain cities with the combined sewer overflows promised to 

keep on spending in the limit where they can afford to solve the 

combined sewer overflow problems, even if spending more money 

will not result in meaningful water quality improvements and substantially less costly controls are available that will meet water 

quality standards. 

I thought the EPA Deputy Administrator and you both have said 

that the EPA would not make cities spend the limits of their affordability without getting meaningful water quality benefits. My 

question is, what is your policy in spending to the limit of affordability? And why aren’t all the regions listening to the DC office? 

Ms. STONER. There is no required spending amount, but it is 

often expensive to address combined sewer overflows. And so part 

of what we are trying to do is to make sure we are identifying the 

most cost-effective approaches and working on those with commuVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:25 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\5-22-1~1\81151.TXT JEAN
26 

nities to make sure every dollar is well-spent and achieves improved water quality. 

Mr. GIBBS. Do you have affordability guidelines that you work 

with with local municipalities? 

Ms. STONER. Right, so we are currently working—in addition to 

integrated planning, we are working with local governments on 

identifying a broader array of factors to be considered on financial 

capability, as well, to ensure that there is a good understanding on 

that. But there has never been a minimum spending amount. 

Mr. GIBBS. My understanding is that you have guidelines and 

you are trying to revise them. Are you working through a revision 

of those guidelines for affordability? 

Ms. STONER. We are working to do something on financial capability similar to what we did on integrated planning. And so that 

would be some kind of a framework or strategy document that we 

would work on with the Conference of Majors, National League of 

Cities, and National Association of Counties. 

Mr. GIBBS. I hope it progresses quicker because I think we had 

this discussion 2 years ago, and it doesn’t seem like we have moved 

far and fast enough. So maybe we ought to try to prioritize that. 

Because I think that would really help municipalities meet their 

clean water standards and do it in a way they can afford to do it. 

Ms. STONER. Again, thank you for your support. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Very briefly, I share the concern that Congresswoman Capito has 

with respect to the length of time that it takes for permits to be 

reviewed and granted, and I indicated that in my opening statement. 

My question is, I am assuming that if there is an 18-percent cut 

across the board to EPA that that means some people who currently work for the EPA will lose their jobs. Is that correct? 

Ms. STONER. I can’t tell you specifically how we would take such 

a cut, but it would certainly impair our ability to do our job, including working with States on permitting—— 

Mr. BISHOP. And so, if there were fewer people available to review permits, it is reasonable to assume that an already-lengthy 

permitting process would become even more so; is that correct? 

Ms. STONER. I think that is fair to assume. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you. And I thank you very much for the 

work that you do under pretty adverse circumstances, and I thank 

you for your testimony today. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I think I have just a couple more questions. 

On stormwater, the EPA has initiated a controversial national 

rulemaking to establish a potentially far-reaching and costly program to regulate stormwater discharges. 

What is the status of rulemaking? And when can we expect to 

see a proposal? And how long will the public comment period be? 

Ms. STONER. So I don’t have answers to all of the details that you 

are asking me about. We are working on a stormwater rule which 

we actually think will, again, address these cost-effectiveness 

issues that we have been talking about in terms of the problems 

27 

associated with water pollution that cities face, many of which 

have to do with population growth and urbanization and so forth. 

So this is part of the approach that we are taking to help to 

bring down those costs. And we are continuing to work on that. 

And I actually have been doing a series of roundtables across the 

country to get more input from cities and others on the proposals 

we are developing now. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Also, I know the question came up earlier, but I wanted to follow 

up a little bit more, because there has been so much concern out 

in the country, especially in the rural areas with agriculture. What 

do you believe the EPA’s jurisdictional authority to regulate water 

is? Is it limited or unlimited of the Clean Water Act? Where do you 

think that authority ends? When you talk about navigable waters, 

just where do you see the Agency? 

Ms. STONER. So that is exactly why we would like to put out a 

clarification, because that question is one that comes up often 

across the country by individuals who are trying to determine 

whether they need permits or not. So many of them are concerned 

that the jurisdiction is unclear, that they just assume there is jurisdiction and move ahead with the permitting process. 

So we think it would be better to clarify the scope of the Clean 

Water Act and the limitations that do exist. And there are limitations. And so we would like to get that clarified. 

Mr. GIBBS. Would you agree that in, I guess it was 1972, when 

the Clean Water Act was enacted into law—it has always been my 

understanding, it was enacted into law under the constitutional authority of the interstate Commerce Clause because the word ‘‘navigable’’ was in there. Would you agree that ‘‘navigable’’ is a key 

word to the constitutionality of the Clean Water Act? 

Ms. STONER. What I would say is that there was a broader scope 

of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act earlier than there is now. 

And some of that was based on the Commerce Clause and the use 

of waters by migratory birds. And the Supreme Court has indicated 

that use by migratory birds is not sufficient. There is a narrower 

scope of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act that—— 

Mr. GIBBS. That would be your opinion, right? That you think 

there is—because I would—— 

Ms. STONER. I think it is pretty well-recognized, but, yes, it is my 

opinion that the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of jurisdiction 

that was previously recognized across the country under the Clean 

Water Act. 

Mr. GIBBS. Interesting. 

I just want to also ask, we talk about the nutrients in the numerical versus narrative standard. Can you tell me where the EPA is 

on setting criteria? Are you moving more toward the numeric in 

some areas? Are we still using more of the narrative? Or where are 

we at? 

Ms. STONER. So I appreciate you asking that, particularly in light 

of your opening remarks about partnerships. So we have indicated 

that our approach is to work with States on statewide nutrient reduction strategies and on criteria. 

So numeric criteria do help States implement programs to help 

address problems associated with nutrient pollution, like algal 

28 

blooms and nitrate contamination of drinking water and so forth. 

And so what we have been doing is working with those States that 

are interested in doing numeric nutrient criteria to help them with 

the science, with technical assistance, to have criteria that work for 

them in their program. 

Mr. GIBBS. Are there some issues with your own science advisory 

board? I think they have expressed concerns about using the numerical standard. 

Ms. STONER. I think that there was a document at one point that 

they made comments on. That was some period of time ago. I think 

we have already addressed those comments. 

But what we are doing is making sure that we have a sound scientific basis for all the work that we do with our State partners 

on developing numeric criteria. 

Mr. GIBBS. Did I understand you correctly to say that some 

States are moving forward, mostly using the numeric? 

Ms. STONER. Yes. There are some States that are currently developing numeric criteria, and we have approved a number of criteria—— 

Mr. GIBBS. About how many States would that be? 

Ms. STONER. I will have to get back to you on the specific answer 

on that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. My understanding, you could have a high nitrogen or phosphorus content in some areas that causes a big problem, obviously, with algae blooms and what else. But there are 

some instances where you could still have a high phosphorous 

standard and maybe not have a problem, but it would exceed the 

numeric standard. 

So I don’t know, if you move totally to a numeric standard and 

don’t use the narrative, will you take in all that is going on in that 

watershed or that water body or river, the pH, the water flow, the 

biology. We just have to be careful we don’t get constricted to this 

one-size-fits-all policy that is going to cause problems. Because 

there are different things going on all across the country in different water bodies. Is that—— 

Ms. STONER. You are correct that there is no one national number that applies to everyone. And that is actually true of water 

quality standards generally. They are set by the States based on 

the uses of the waters. 

But for nutrient pollution, different water bodies naturally have 

different amount of nutrients in them. And so that is one of the factors to be taken into account. And we do that in developing the 

science, working with the States to set criteria that are appropriate 

for them. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

There is a provision in the Clean Water Act that aims to prevent 

conflicts of interest with people that get appointed to State water 

quality boards overseeing the administration of Clean Water Act 

permits. EPA’s long-existing rules have a 10-percent income restriction, which has led to problems over the years in many States 

being able to get qualified people to serve on such, quote, ‘‘citizens 

boards.’’ Some have attempted to use these provisions, in maybe 

Florida and Maine, as a weapon to try to disqualify political appointees from environmental agencies. 

29 

Section 304 of the Clean Water Act directed U.S. EPA to develop 

regulations to prevent an individual that receives significant income from a permittee or permit applicant from sitting on a water 

quality authority that reviews and issues NPDES permits. U.S. 

EPA has defined ‘‘significant’’ to be income in excess of 10 percent 

of an individual’s annual income. This test applies to immediate 

family members also. 

Please explain the basis of this decision that led to the determination that a 10-percent income threshold was the appropriate 

way to protect against conflicts? 

Ms. STONER. I believe we are working on a revision associated 

with that. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

It has comes to the committee’s attention that EPA’s Office of 

Water is considering ways in which it might revise the income restriction rule to better reflect the realities and complexities of implementing the NPDES permit program, the reach of which has 

greatly expanded over the years since passage of the Clean Water 

Act. 

Can you explain how the Agency envisions developing alternatives that would ensure that qualified individuals can be appointed to water quality authorities using true conflict-of-interest 

tests? 

And that probably is in your vision, I am assume you are going 

to tell me. 

Ms. STONER. Yeah. Those are the issues that we are looking at 

in the revision, yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. What about timing? You are working on the revision. 

Do you have a timetable? 

Ms. STONER. Not one that I can share with you now, but we 

would be happy to get back to you on that. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

I do have another issue here that I guess I might as well bring 

up, since nobody else is going to ask a question. 

Apparently, there is, in Region 9, in the San Diego area, a continue to push permit users in California to impose a numeric influence standard for bacteria in permits based on EPA’s November 

2010 memorandum that is still not approved and finalized through 

the OMB review process. 

In light of the recent Eighth Circuit opinion in the Iowa League 

of Cities case finding the practice to violate Administrative Procedures Act requirements, does the EPA intend to withdraw the November 2010 memorandum? 

Ms. STONER. So the water-quality-based effluent limits that are 

in MS4 permits are not reliant on that memo. They are actually 

reliant on the regulations and the findings that States make that 

waters are impaired and that they are impaired by stormwater. 

So the memo is not actually critical to that decisionmaking, 

which is an authority that the Ninth Circuit has found that the 

Agency has under the stormwater program to implement waterquality-based effluent limits to protect water quality. And that is 

what is being addressed in those permits that you are asking 

about. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

30 

Well, I guess we will conclude, and I appreciate—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GIBBS. Oh, yes? Go ahead. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, thank you. And I apologize, but I am glad 

the chairman brought up the NPDES permit process. 

A few years ago in my previous job, I was working with many 

stakeholders in rural areas who were concerned about the EPA regional office that covers Illinois, their attempt to work with the Illinois EPA to regulate and require testing of above-ground septic 

system discharge systems, commonly known as aeration systems. 

Is there a national push by your agency to require an NPDES 

permit for individual systems, above-ground discharge systems? 

Ms. STONER. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. OK. So that was a regional push and—— 

Ms. STONER. Septic systems are problems in some areas. They 

are covered by the Nonpoint Source Program. And when they are 

problematic, we work with States to use the 319 funds that we can 

provide or other State authorities. And States may have different 

authorities than we do to address septic system pollution. 

It can be a big problem in some areas, and so we do like to work 

to address that. Sometimes it can be addressed by something as 

simple as helping people clean out their septic systems. So if you 

have one, you should make sure you clean it out periodically. But 

they can cause some bacterial kinds of contamination and nutrient 

pollution of waterways nearby. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. And I do have one, and I do clean 

it out periodically. 

There was a big concern, though, that the State and the regional 

office were going to require in Illinois testing of discharge on each 

and every above-ground septic system, aeration system, throughout 

the State, which would inordinately hurt some of the most rural 

and poorest areas of the State of Illinois. I know that that push 

was a few years ago. I am glad to hear that there is not a national 

push from the EPA to do that. 

And I would encourage your agency to work with those regional 

offices in the States to understand the impact that a proposed rule 

like this might have. And the fact, in Illinois, where I live, we 

didn’t have the testing facilities that would be able to take the 

tests and figure out whether or not someone passed. There were no 

further rules about how many tests is it going to take to actually 

prove, if you failed, if you are now up to your standards. 

It was an issue that was big a couple of years ago. It is one that 

I hope doesn’t become a major issue again. And I hope all of the 

septic system owners like myself do clean their systems out and do 

take advantage of the technology that is out there, because it is not 

a permit that should be needed on an individual basis in rural 

States like mine. 

So thank you for clarifying that. Thank you again for your time 

today. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

I just wanted to close by just kind of a statement that I think 

today we learned that—I am happy to see you recognize that agriculture can play a key role in enhancing water quality. I am a firm 

31 

believer of that, especially with a lot of the new technologies that 

are being used, with no-till and min-tillage practices and grass waterways and all that. 

I am concerned, obviously, we had the issue about public disclosure of private information. Hopefully that stays at the top your 

radar screen and is addressed appropriately. 

And, also, we are working—we have challenges out there in infrastructure. And I get a lot of people coming into local municipalities; they are all under, most of them, some EPA edict, combined 

sewer overflow or overcapacity in the sewage treatment plant. And 

that is why I think the integrated permit process, which I know 

you support, I think would be a key initiative to help them. Because there is not just enough money to go around. And, hopefully, 

we can do some things here legislatively. One thing I have been 

working on is a private-public partnership to bring some resources 

in, especially in that area, that I think could make a lot of sense 

for both the private and public sectors. So, encouraged by that. 

But I think it is also worth mentioning that—I am sure my ranking member gets it, too, a lot of his constituents and local businesses are concerned about how sometimes the EPA operates. I 

think everybody wants clean air and clean water. And I think it 

is important that as much as we can do to help them come into 

compliance and do the right thing, instead of go out and beat them 

over the head. Sometimes that doesn’t always work as well either. 

So I think that is always important, as we work as public servants. 

So I want to thank you for both being here. 

And we will conclude this hearing. Adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

32 


Insert offset folio 12 here 81151.012
33 


Insert offset folio 13 here 81151.013
34 


Insert offset folio 14 here 81151.014
35 


Insert offset folio 15 here 81151.015
36 


Insert offset folio 16 here 81151.016
37 


Insert offset folio 17 here 81151.017
38 


Insert offset folio 18 here 81151.018
39 


Insert offset folio 19 here 81151.019
40 


Insert offset folio 20 here 81151.020
41 


Insert offset folio 21 here 81151.021
42 


Insert offset folio 22 here 81151.022
43 


Insert offset folio 23 here 81151.023
44 


Insert offset folio 24 here 81151.024
45 


Insert offset folio 25 here 81151.025
46 


Insert offset folio 26 here 81151.026
47 


Insert offset folio 27 here 81151.027
48 


Insert offset folio 28 here 81151.028
49 


Insert offset folio 29 here 81151.029
50 


Insert offset folio 30 here 81151.030
51 


Insert offset folio 31 here 81151.031
52 


Insert offset folio 32 here 81151.032
53 


Insert offset folio 33 here 81151.033
54 


Insert offset folio 34 here 81151.034
55 


Insert offset folio 35 here 81151.035
56 


Insert offset folio 36 here 81151.036
57 


Insert offset folio 37 here 81151.037
58 


Insert offset folio 38 here 81151.038
59 


Insert offset folio 39 here 81151.039
60 


Insert offset folio 40 here 81151.040
61 


Insert offset folio 41 here 81151.041
62 


Insert offset folio 42 here 81151.042
63 


Insert offset folio 43 here 81151.043
64 


Insert offset folio 44 here 81151.044
65 


Insert offset folio 45 here 81151.045
66 


Insert offset folio 46 here 81151.046
67 


Insert offset folio 47 here 81151.047
68 


Insert offset folio 48 here 81151.048
69 


Insert offset folio 49 here 81151.049
70 


Insert offset folio 50 here 81151.050
71 


Insert offset folio 51 here 81151.051
72 


Insert offset folio 52 here 81151.052
73 


Insert offset folio 53 here 81151.053
74 


Insert offset folio 54 here 81151.054
75 


Insert offset folio 55 here 81151.055
76 


Insert offset folio 56 here 81151.056
77 


Insert offset folio 57 here 81151.057
78 


Insert offset folio 58 here 81151.058
79 


Insert offset folio 59 here 81151.059
80 


Insert offset folio 60 here 81151.060
81 


Insert offset folio 61 here 81151.061
82 


Insert offset folio 62 here 81151.062
83 


Insert offset folio 63 here 81151.063
84 


Insert offset folio 64 here 81151.064
85 


Insert offset folio 65 here 81151.065
86 


Insert offset folio 66 here 81151.066
87 


Insert offset folio 67 here 81151.067
88 


Insert offset folio 68 here 81151.068
89 


Insert offset folio 69 here 81151.069
90 


Insert offset folio 70 here 81151.070
91 


Insert offset folio 71 here 81151.071
92 


Insert offset folio 72 here 81151.072
93 


Insert offset folio 73 here 81151.073
94 


Insert offset folio 74 here 81151.074
95 


Insert offset folio 75 here 81151.075
96 


Insert offset folio 76 here 81151.076
97 


Insert offset folio 77 here 81151.077
98 


Insert offset folio 78 here 81151.078
99 


Insert offset folio 79 here 81151.079
100 


Insert offset folio 80 here 81151.080
101 


Insert offset folio 81 here 81151.081
102 


Insert offset folio 82 here 81151.082
103 


Insert offset folio 83 here 81151.083
104 


Insert offset folio 84 here 81151.084
105 


Insert offset folio 85 here 81151.085
106 


Insert offset folio 86 here 81151.086
107 


Insert offset folio 87 here 81151.087
108 


Insert offset folio 88 here 81151.088
109 


Insert offset folio 89 here 81151.089
110 


Insert offset folio 90 here 81151.090
111 


Insert offset folio 91 here 81151.091
112 


Insert offset folio 92 here 81151.092
113 


Insert offset folio 93 here 81151.093
114 


Insert offset folio 94 here 81151.094
115 


Insert offset folio 95 here 81151.095
116 


Insert offset folio 96 here 81151.096
117 


Insert offset folio 97 here 81151.097
118 


Insert offset folio 98 here 81151.098
119 


Insert offset folio 99 here 81151.099
120 


Insert offset folio 100 here 81151.100
121 


Insert offset folio 101 here 81151.101
122 


Insert offset folio 102 here 81151.102
123 


Insert offset folio 103 here 81151.103
124 


Insert offset folio 104 here 81151.104
125 


Insert offset folio 105 here 81151.105
126 


Insert offset folio 106 here 81151.106
127 


Insert offset folio 107 here 81151.107
128 


Insert offset folio 108 here 81151.108
129 


Insert offset folio 109 here 81151.109
130 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 110 here 81151.110